After he had been beheaded on her husband's order, Fulvia, wife of Mark Anthony, apparently tugged the lolling tongue from Cicero's mouth and pricked the flaccid, silenced organ with a hairpin. No such hideous muting ritual for Tommy Sheridan, but yesterday's guilty verdict on five of six perjury clauses has left this Satsuma Cicero comprehensively peeled, pith, peel - and pulped. For myself, I don't give a fig about swinging. Indeed, the very thought of any penetrative vivacity involving Ms Khan - wherever, whenever, with whomever - puts a tackety boot of lurching sickliness into my gut. And the process?

Law's great brutality, and in many respects, its great achievement, is its artificial finality. Judge and jury cannot shrug. They can fail to be convinced, but they cannot avoid making a decision. Judgements long deferred becomes a judgment finalised. Uncertainties collapse. Real world cares, their hearsay and uncorroborated truths - all poised equivocations are obliterated by the unavoidable side-taking of a verdict. Nobody paying attention could miss the sudden shift in mood and tone yesterday, from contempt-of-court fearing balance to wholesale condemnation. As I argued before the jury delivered their majority verdict yesterday, its important to recognise the gap between truth and criminal law's instruments - narrow charges, limited facts, much of the story left unsaid, significant evidence left out, whether tactically or due to the law of evidence. Trials do not tell the whole story. As the Advocate-Depute Alex Prentice QC said to the jury in his summing up, dismissing much of the defence case as "irrelevant", "this is not a public inquiry, it is a criminal trial". Despite my consciousness-warping legal education, I'm not arguing that Sherry shouldn't have made this stoutly "irrelevant" alternative case, articulating his arguments according to his own political lights. Subverting the polite norms of the system, discordantly refusing to submit to the ruling spirit of your subjection, is calculated to appeal to me. However, in the final analysis, Sheridan's attempts to redefine the terms of his trial failed - and failed much more profoundly than (I think almost everyone) anticipated.

Much has been made of the suggestion that Sheridan was somehow unfairly singled out. Why a prosecution in this case and not in others? Why do other civil actions not give rise to parallel Crown curiosity, investigation? On the second point, it is worth bearing in mind that few civil matters involve such clear oath-bound divergences in the evidence lead. University of Edinburgh criminal law scholar, James Chalmers, appealed to metaphors of the armoury, distinguishing perjury as a shield from perjury as a sword. If we assume that yesterday's verdict is just - then we have a particularly extreme case, where the whole action was predicated on a fraud on the court. Some have argued that perjury in our criminal courts is endemic. Why so few prosecutions? Or more pointedly, why this prosecution? On a few extreme accounts of the case I encountered over the last day, any discretionary application of the law is itself imagined as problemic. If that's so, then Scotland and many other countries have pervasively mischievious systems of prosecution, hardly limited to Sheridan. I've blogged several times this year about the Scottish Parliament's response to some difficulty drafting a general law capturing whatever specific evil our tribunes want punished. Faced with definitional challenges, a frequent response is to distinguish the law from its application and broadly-drafted new crimes are simply passed - enlarging prosecutorial discretion and relying on procurators fiscal to identify the cases that "really" deserve to be pursued. This is certainly problematic. However, critically, discretion doesn't evaporate even with clearly defined Scottish crimes. We can and probably ought to be suspicious (or at the very least critical and questioning) about the organisational values which inform discretionary application of the law "in the public interest". However, we're simply slurping moonshine if we fail to realise that this cannot be a question of whether prosecutions are discretionary or not - but how discretion is used.

In which context, the question becomes - why shouldn't Sheridan have been investigated and prosecuted? If I embezzled £200,000 from my employers, I think few of us would think such a fraud was minor. You might argue that Sheridan's primary purpose was not venal cash-grabbing but was bound up with the bubble reputation and the scabrous nature of the publication he opposed. That I could believe, at least somewhat. However, such overdetermined crimes of dishonesty are hardly without precedent. Think of those cases of fraud where the cheat accumulates vast vaults of cash in their attics or cellars - ill-gotten gains unspent - whose dishonesty is driven by the thrill of cheating their employers or some sort of triumphant ressentiment, rather thanexplicit avarice. Are we arguing that one should only be investigated and indicted if you commit your crime like a good wealth-maximising monadic individual and spent your gains on a louche bourgeois lifestyle? Are we suggesting that false accounting should be prosecuted, but those who make dishonest use of our formal justice systems for gain hardly trouble the conscience? Equally, if we follow the reasoning through and demand all perjurers should be prosecuted - that hardly exculpates the Satsuma Socialist of his perjuries, does it? Those entertaining doubts about the justness of putting these accusations before a jury to determine have other questions they might ask themselves. If you believe Tommy Sheridan lied in court, thereby accessing its institutional power and deploying that power against a dislikeable opponent in News International, are you arguing that the Crown should ask itself were the lies told in a case involving a moral or immoral opponent before pressing charges? I'd be interested to hear that argument justified, if we generalise its significance beyond the eminence grise of Rupert Murdoch. For my part, I find all of these arguments deeply unconvincing. Then again, I would say that - having imbibed a good deal of bourgeois legal ideology.

Still others have invoked the spectres of other guilty men, who do not feel the wroth and rack and ruin for their substantial misdeeds in life, while Sheridan careens into oblivion. Proportionate, fair? Perhaps not, but again, this is hardly an active exculpation of Tommy's wilful misdeeds, is it? To be quite clear, I think proportion matters and we should be icily clear with ourselves about the vital importance of not collapsing our values into legal values by identifying legal guilt with guilt, blameworthiness and immorality per se. There are plenty of smooth besuited villains who are convicted of nothing and yet who warrant glacial contempt, who live within the law and yet live profoundly immoral, contemptible existences. In all of this, we should bear in mind the limits of the law's stark verdicts and the gap which separates it and ought to separate it from reflective, reflexive grey-shade tribunal of our own consciences.

On both registers, it seems to me that Mr Sheridan was guilty as sin and reaps a ruinous harvest for it. This is sorely to be lamented. The civil appeal in the Court of Session was sisted pending the outcome of yesterday's criminal case against Sheridan. He hasn't seen a penny of the £200,000 he was awarded at the end of the 2006 defamation trial. I would not wish to pre-judge their Lordships' analysis, but it is an old legal maxim that no soul should be permitted to benefit from his own wrongs. To the obvious personal wreck and the political collapse - in the New Year we will likely add financial ruin. I also understand that Mr Sheridan had been reading for a law degree. I've no idea if he completed that endeavour - however, resurrection as any sort of legal professional is now also impossible. The Satsuma Cicero's last case. This whole affair is an unnecessary gruesome catastrophe that squandered the possibilities of a better history. I'm reminded of a quotation from Voltaire, which seems apt here:

“I have never been ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one.”

Indeed, the Sage of Ferney had it right - and as the Duke of Wellington later observed, next to a battle lost, the saddest thing is a battle won.

If Sheridan had won, I wonder if he would have gone on to contest Glasgow next year - and if, as seems likely, he would have been up against George Galloway (who wrote Sheridan off a few weeks ago in the Record), then goodness that would have been a bitter and bloody fight between the former allies.

I hold no brief for Sheridan - a rasping demagogue - but am creeped out by the buzzards of BBC Scotland (and their kin) picking over his bones.

I had a desperate urge to ask Donald Findlay what he thought about it all but thankfully resisted the temptation -

That Wellington quotation was very aptly deployed, Edwin. I know a number of folk who dreaded the prospect of a gloating acquittal - but who look on with a measure of pity at the ruination the guilty verdict has wrought. The best advice I have for Sheridan at this moment is - have a read of some Stoic philosophy. Kindliness would be to send him a copy of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations.

I tried to tease out some of the serious questions which prosecution doubters really do have to answer. I'd love to hear those arguing Sheridan shouldn't have been (a) investigated or (b) prosecuted, given the evidence, justify their position on these terms. Any takers?

Using the same logic you emply, I take it that you would also support the prosecution of Fiona McGuire for perjury? If not, why not?

The evidence presented in the trial reveals that Fiona McGuire sold a story to the NOTW for £20,000, and then repeated the thrust of her claims against Tommy Sheridan in the libel cas, while under oath. The police evidence in Tommy perjury trial was that they concluded that she had not been telling the truth.

Therefore, why should it not be in the public interest to prosecute someone who it appears has made up lies about someone with the sole intential of benefitting financially by selling that story to the NOTW?

You reminded me of an issue I had planned to raise in the post above, but slipped my mind in the composing. Instead of commenting on the individual you mention, I'll limit my response to general issues worth bearing in mind in these sorts of circumstances.

Above, I was mostly focussing on the justifiability/desirability of the prosecution. Its important to bear in mind that the Crown can only proceed, realistically, when it has corroborated evidence of the elements of the offence charged.

While perjury may occur regularly enough in Scottish criminal courts - prosecution is realistically limited to those cases where corroborating evidence is available. In circumstances where there are very limited witnesses - perhaps only two, testifying against one another - corroborating evidence and thus a competent conviction would be particularly difficult to obtain. In other cases, the evidence will be sufficiently limited and sufficiently polarised that realistically, a conviction is unlikely.

These issues have to be kept in mind, since they precede any analysis of the public interest. Non-prosecution, therefore, might not suggest that the Crown don't think a potential accused was at it - other evidential and practical considerations can explain non-prosecution.

I am saddened to see a formerly excellent silk demean himself in his dotage by posting such paranoid ravings as those Ian Hamilton has put online.

The facts remain that there was a clear sufficiency of evidence to show that Tommy Sheridan had sought to obtain £200,000 by dishonest means.

For those who still see this as a Murdoch-driven show trial, nothing anyone says is likely to persuade them otherwise. Many cavil at the massivecost of the investigation. Let us not forget, though, that the state through the Legal Aid fund afforded them the services of solicitors and senior and junior counsel throughout the case and its countless preliminary diets. Ultimately, the fate of the accused rested in the hands of fourteen people selected at random, whose political beliefs remain unknown to everyone, and will always remain so. It is disturbing to see that some commenters are casting aspersions on them already.

I'd also like to add - along with many, many others - my warm thanks for your tireless (and I suspect often tired!) coverage from the case. A grand service, demonstrating the power of the citizen journalism with nothing more mighty than a notebook, a laptop, a blog - and a t'internet connection.

As I've noted elsewhere, I concur with that assessment Voice of Reason.

The comparisons with the trial of Thomas Muir, in particular, is ludicrous, invidious. The idea that any prosecution is contrary to "all principles" of Scots Law is similarly, sadly, nonsensical. Its one thing to take a view on truth or falsity, mischief and honesty. Its quite another to imply - as I understand some are implying - that prima facie none of this was worth even investigating. Just alter the fact pattern slightly. Can one imagine similar impatient solidarity, if the mischief-making booty-seeker had been A Tory figure like Baillie Bill Aitken?

Perhaps he'll try and coax Maggie Scott QC back aboard the good ship Sheridan? It'd be a wise choice. Assuming any issues pass the sift, Sheridan would be bonkers if he tried to represent himself. The Court of Criminal Appeal is likely to be a particularly unforgiving forum for a party litigant who attempts to stray from the legal issues.

While perjury may occur regularly enough in Scottish criminal courts - prosecution is realistically limited to those cases where corroborating evidence is available. In circumstances where there are very limited witnesses - perhaps only two, testifying against one another - corroborating evidence and thus a competent conviction would be particularly difficult to obtain. In other cases, the evidence will be sufficiently limited and sufficiently polarised that realistically, a conviction is unlikely.

These issues have to be kept in mind, since they precede any analysis of the public interest. Non-prosecution, therefore, might not suggest that the Crown don't think a potential accused was at it - other evidential and practical considerations can explain non-prosecution.

Do you think there is now a justification for the Crown to pursue for perjury those witnesses who testified, for example, that Tommy denied his shaggery at the "9/11 meeting"? Given that the jury has found this to be untrue, there would seem to be a pretty strong basis, to say the least, for prosecution. Yet it would appear the Crown is minded to turn a blind eye to these crimes.

Realistically speaking, I'd be surprised if the Crown proceeded against the minority who testified on behalf of Sheridan. Given that the issue would involve eliciting testimony for a third time from the relevant parties - we might expect that appetite to proceed against Rosemary Byrne et al is minimal. I am not, nor have I even been, a procurator-fiscal. I'm not well placed to describe the processes by dint of which cases are ruled in or out. However, I'd be most surprised if the Crown determined that the public interest required further action. Ironically, it is precisely the discretionary prosecution in the public interest - which Tommy supporters have lately been suggesting is pervasively unfair - which will likely save those in Solidarity with him.

It was my opinion, before the trial even started, that probably the only person in Scotland who though Tommy was innocent was Gail.

However, if I had been a member of the Sheridan jury, I ponder if I would have been able to eschew my proper duty and find him not guilty simply on the principal that as a small man against the press (any press, not just the Murdoch variety) he found himself as a David fighting a Goliath.

Regardless of any clever arguments you make, and both sides can make them, my gut feeling is what happen to Tommy Sheridan is just plain wrong.

And I might be naive, but I think he is innocent of this particular accusation. As, Mr Sheridan stated in court, the police made NO ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER to investigate aspects of that particular prognosis.

Further, if the Crown was really interested in upholding standards in Scotland, then it ought to investigate why, repeatedly, the police handed information to Murdoch's media, presumeably in exchange for brown envelopes stuffed with cash. And who is say that others - in addition to those who admitted receiving cheques from Murdoch's organisations - didn't have the same experience.

The Crown has made a sorry mistake in aligning itself with News International. Scotland's judicial system appears to have the same integrity as a third-world banana republic.

Excellent article, Mr. Worrier - thanks for providing genuine and thoughtful enlightenment to your readers. On the matter of the Scottish judicial system, some of your commentators are eager to point out that it is is less than perfect in some respects. That may be so, but it certainly isn't proved just by the fact that Tommy Sheridan got a result he and his cronies didn't like. It's worth reminding some of the whingers that it was Tommy who went to court in the first place; complaining about the outcome is very much akin to a petulant, fouling footballer getting sent off and then moaning about the refereeing. Tommy knew about the laws of perjury just as well as anyone else, and it's unreasonable of his supporters to be claiming afterwards that its not fair and that it's all someone else's fault. Like his distinguished predecessors Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken, Tommy committed a crime, he's been done for it, and that's that.

One curiousity of this case is that in spite of Lothian & Borders police spending 18 months and £1.5 million they were unable to come up with any new corroborating evidence, apart from verbatim notes of Tommy's alleged confession, which were found at the bottom of Barbara Scott's handbag and the alleged filmed confession, which was created by the professional actor George McNeilage, who was also paid £200,000 for that creation.

Of course, the reason the police could find no corroborating evidence is simple, there was none to be found, as Tommy Sheridan is innocent.

I suspect, if the police, who at every stage of the investigation were directed by the Crown prosecution, had searched for corroborating evidence of his testimony, they would have found it by the bucket-load.

The jury was presented with confusing and conflicting testimonies from the witnesses, but because Tommy Sheridan was the only one accused of perjury by the Crown, even though he is innocent, there was a biase in the whole proceedings. The jury would assumed that the police had carried out an impartial investigation. But, we now suspect that the Crown prevented them from doing so. The jury, being naive and confused, would naturally side with the Crown and convict Mr Sheriden.

The whole affair stinks to high heaven and anyone that denies it is extremely impartial.

Det Ch Supt Malcolm Graham was quoted by the BBC as saying: "At every stage of the investigation, Lothian and Borders Police acted on the direction of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service."

Are you honestly suggesting that it your position is that it is perfectly acceptable to dishonestly obtain financial gain by lying in court - in the process, accusing a whole parade of honest people of being crooks and perjurers - just so long as you have sued some dislikeable figure or organisation? Put yourself in another gathering - the SSP Executive meeting. Would your David and Goliath logic extend to testifying falsely on the man's behalf, simply because of who he was attempting to litigiously bruise?

I think you are overstating your case in your remark on my comment. The point is that many of them probably WERE lying to some degree. By no stretch of the imagination were his accusers uniformly solid citizens of unblemished character and reputation, least of all some members of the press.

Its impossible to engage in a debate with the perceptions of your visceral tract. Moreover, your references to corroboration are difficult to untangle, in the sense that corroboration is an evidendiary rule which applies to particular charges. We cannot talk about how it effected a particular case, charged upon a particular indictment, at a level of generality.

I'll focus on one issue you raise. You don't strike me as a legal ideologue, so your reference to corroboration is rather odd. As I noted in an earlier post, the corroboration rules works very much in favour of the defence - particularly in cases where evidence is difficult to obtain. It is also artificial, in the sense that in our day to day assessments of guilt, innocence, truth - we hardly demand a corroborating sufficiency of evidence in order to make decisions and assessments. In England, the rules do not obtain. In Scotland, they have significant potential for mischief. For example, it is perfectly possible to imagine a very real rape case where there will simply be one source of evidence - and any prosecution will be impossible. Lack of corroboration, therefore, cannot simply entail that the allegations were false, as you suggest.

Moreover, if there were oodles and oodles of folk who could corroborate Sheridan's story, why didn't he lead them? The state gave him extensive access to legal personnel in the course of the research, preparation and initial stages of his defence. The defence has its opportunity to call witnesses. Prima facie such witnesses' evidence would be acutely relevant and any evidence they possessed could have been put before the jury. How, on your version, do you explain that? It seems a slight to Mr Sheridan to impute to him such a passive, meek, biddable character - unwilling to do the (according to you) easy spadework of rooting around in that "bucketload" of evidence which might support his sincerity.

To amend the proposition slightly then, you think it is perfectly justified to dishonestly obtain financial gain by lying in court - in the process, accusing a whole parade of people of being crooks and perjurers who are being substantially honest about the whole basis of your defamation action - just so long as you have sued some dislikeable figure or organisation?

I really cannot agree with that. I can see how one committed, Manichean socialist vision might make such an argument consistently - albeit still founded on exceedingly problematic (un)values. Assuming that that isn't your reasoning - I find it an inexplicable position.

Its important to bear in one legal caution when you are interpreting the potential significance of arguable points on appeal. Even if the Court of Criminal Appeal determined that one or more of these points was well-founded, Sheridan would not immediately see his conviction vacated. The "miscarriage of justice" standard is not as formalistic as some people might imagine, nor is a single persuasive argument per se enough to knock down the jury's verdict.

As a result, a judge could partially misdirect a jury - appeal judges determining that she had employed an "unfortunate" emphasis in her remarks - yet the conviction could be substantially upheld. Something to bear in mind.

You are of course right, and thank you for your very considered replies to my somewhat flippant comments.

It is a fact that to a large extent within the workings of the law, might is right and it is beautiful therefore to see occasionally the innocent wee guy winning against a mighty institution which has the power to break almost anybody or any cause it chooses.

Unfortunately that was not the case here in that Tommy was, in my opinion as well as the jury's, not innocent or at least not innocent enough to succeed.

Thank you just found this blog and I think your comments on this trial are very enlightening and helpful to understand the legal rocky road particularly in the Scottish Legal System. Many of fancy ourselves as lawyers after watching Crown Court in the 70s whilst lying on the couch with chicken pox and getting a day of school, sadly our memories let us down and we don't understand the differences and complexities in the English and Scottish court systems.

You are certainly not alone. Few Scots, realistically, will be aware of the different legal approaches and rules which obtain north and south of the Tweed. Most will know about our queer three verdicts - but fewer I suspect are familiar with the details of our larger juries and so on.

As I've noted elsewhere before, the pertinent differences between Scotland and England and Wales aren't terribly complex, but if you are unfamiliar with them, their details can appear complicated and confusing. To properly understand the structural issues in the case of H.M. Advocate v. Sheridan, I'd say two are acutely relevant. Firstly, the law of evidence requiring corroboration - and secondly the different Scottish approach which obtains in jury numbers and jury voting.

Following on from the comment above, I am currently writing a piece for either "Scottish Criminal Law" or the "Scots law Times" on the very issue of the perceptions of the laws of evidence and procedure that have been thrown up by this case.

I have been particularly interested at the number of assumptions about matters judges presume juries understand, that contributors to Mr. Doleman's blog (who, by definition, have a specific interest in the subject matter) have made.

Even now, many postings seem unable to draw the distinction between evidence that would be relevant in respect of an appeal in the civil proceedings for defamation, and evidence that would be relevant in a criminal appeal against conviction for perjury.

In addition, many still appear either unwilling or unable to grasp that there is a very clear dividing line between Crown Office and the solicitors acting for News International. There is, quite simply, not a shred of evidence of evidence that a number of senior figures in Crown Office decided to abandon centuries of prosecutorial independence and throw their lot in with a foreign newspaper proprietor, and ample evidence that this case was prosecuted for one reason alone, namely that there was corroborated evidence that a man won £200,000 by lying on oath.

Whether that allegation was true or not was a matter for the jury, and anyone who believes that juries follow the Crown line has clearly not spent much time in court.

An interesting subject to address, Voice of Reason, not least because it raises interesting issues for you as an author about your own reflexive understanding of law and how that relate to popular conceptions of Scots legal institutions (given our past interactions, I take you to be a practitioner working in the High Court). That brings you (potentially) closer to my own area of scholarly interest, the sociology of law.

Legal anthropologists have written about "legal pluralism" (a term calculated to vex lawyers) trying to capture "bottom-up", popular understandings of legalities. This shouldn't necessarily be confused with legal pluralism in the sense of multiple forms of institutionalised law in a given country, society such as Scots Law, EU Law, European Human Rights and so on. Defined along anthropological lines, legal pluralism can encompass values which to the lawyer will seem patently non-legal, but nonetheless have a normative ordering role in a given social unit or which represents a given public's understandings of the law.

A more neutral term for a similar form of enquiry is the related corpus of literature on "legal consciousness", seeking to track people's beliefs and understandings about legal values, legal practices, legal institutions.

To the professional lawyer, many of these beliefs about legal processes (extensively articulated on the Sheridan trial blog) can seem simply inaccurate, clueless, misplaced. Your own remarks above suggest a certain impatience with punters, bereft of any familiarity with the detail or the social interaction of court processes, who cannot distinguish elements which are "obvious" to any soul which has been legally educated.

My point is that the issue you discuss could be looked at in a number of fascinating ways. Indeed, while it is of interest to know that a gap separates popular understandings (as expressed by self-selecting blog viewers and those sufficiently moved to comment), we could press on and ask the distinct but related question - why are people's understandings "legally inaccurate" in the way they are? What does that tell us about (some) Scots (mis)understandings about Scottish legal institutions?

For my own part, I think most sociologists and anthropologists radically underestimate how odd lawyers really are. One argument I've been trying to advance on this blog is the extent to which trials follow an artificial reason - or to put it in more negative terms, shouldn't be mistaken for or unproblematically identified with any more general, "naturalistic" investigation into truth, reality or anything else. It is important to know that a distance separates trials from unstructured investigations. It seems to me to be equally significant that popular analysis demonstrates minimal consciousness of the gaps separating one from the other. (Indeed one might theorise Mr Sheridan's defence as an attempt, by occupying the partially open-ended place of the advocate, with the privilege of addressing a jury largely according to his own lights and Perry Mason style, to collapse these traditional distinctions.)

Lallands, Sir, my daughter is off to Aberdeen next year to study for a career in your profession. Some of these postings are fascinating to her, given her specific interest in sociology etc, and your article/blog stimulates reasoned debate. More sense in a polarised story.You say you have no PF experience, so I take it you cannot possibly know j*** t**m*** etc...Mebbes he's too old...

My background is a bit of a ragbag, starting off in the law and lurching sideways. Such eclecticism yields benefits and throws up its problems, from time to time. Hope your daughter very much enjoys her studies. The very best of good luck go with her!

In a case where there was manifestly a body of corroborated evidence pointing to the commission of perjury for financial gain, are you seriously suggesting that the Scottish authorities should have followed a different route to that taken by the English prosecutors when evidence emerged that Jeffrey Archer had won damages by lying on oath?

The difference in the Archer case is that new evidence was brought to the Prosecutor i.e. his co-accused admitted that the letter of alibi was false, if memory serves, 12 years later.

There was no such new evidence brought to the Prosecutor in this case, rather the opinion of one man. Isn't that rather contemptuous of the jury deliberations ?

The fact that the alleged perjury was for financial gain is in some respects neither here nor there. Is the commission of a crime made more serious, contemptible, punishable, more worthy of investigation, when the root is money ? I hope that is not the #Crown Office position.

As a lay-person my view of the defamation case, was that there were some truths told on both sides, the jury for their own reasons, on balance, accepted Mr. Sheridan’s version of events. The NOTW still had the appeal process to go through and I haven’t yet seen an explanation as to why they seemed to drag their heels on that. Nor do I understand why the perjury action was begun before NOTW had exhausted their legal options on the defamation case.

If we, the public, are to believe journalists like Hannan from the Scotsman and in this case I do, when he says that if the sheer amount of lies told in Edinburgh Courts each day is to be investigated for perjury, these trials would become a permanent and costly feature of our legal system. That may or may not come to pass and until or perhaps unless it does the question will remain as to why this particular perjury investigation was undertaken and at such an astronomical cost to the tax-payer, when at the heart of the matter was an unfinished civil spat, very unlike the two very serious cases you mentioned above.

Thank you for the reply and to others on this blog & elsewhere for the legal explanations. They really are appreciated.

1. Your reference to "co-accused" in the Archer case is baffling. Archer was the sole plaintiff, and the only person who faced a perjury charge.

2. Subsequent to the verdict in the Sheridan defamation case the following emerged; (a) the McNeilage tape, (b) the evidence of Gary Clark that he went to Cupid's, (c) the alleged admission to Dr Nick McKerrell (d) identification from Mr Cumberbirch, and (e) the alleged sighting of Sheridan and Anvar Khan by Elizabeth Quinn.

Not all may have been credible, not all were believed, but that's five new pieces of evidence pointing towards perjury, all led by the Crown before a jury as they should have been.

Re financial gain; I suspect that few would regard it as in the public interest to prosecute the accused whose alibi has not been believed in a murder trial for perjury. Their motive is entirely understandable. Likewise, where the argument is about self-defence there would be little enthusiasm for prosecuting a defence witness. To the extent that the public interest suggests that a line must be drawn, perjury to win money, or gloatingly revealing your guilt after giving false evidence securing your acquittal (see HMA v Cairns in 1967) would seem to justify prosecution, while simply lying in presenting your own defence unsuccessfully in a criminal court might not usually merit prosecution.

The NOTW appeal was, as I understand it, lodged in time many years ago, then sisted when it emerged that the respondent might face criminal proceedings. That is in fact fairly standard in civil appellate procedure. For a civil appeal court to determine matters using a lower standard of proof might well prejudice criminal proceedings (not a perjury "action" - that is a civil term) in which the presumption of innocence applies.

I read Hannan's article and disagree with both his premise and his conclusions anent perjury - in reality there are very few cases in which people who have known each other for many years give wholly different versions of an event where both were present. There are often major differences of degree or interpretation, or questions over certainty of identification, but the evidence of the SSP members re the admissions or non-admissions is extremely unusual. I have never seen or heard anything similar in over 25 years in court.

The Archer case was a "civil spat", incidentally, and also involved a prominent political figure later proven to have used his wife as a human shield in seeking personal enrichment.

" Subsequent to the verdict in the Sheridan defamation case the following emerged; (a) the McNeilage tape, (b) the evidence of Gary Clark that he went to Cupid's, (c) the alleged admission to Dr Nick McKerrell (d) identification from Mr Cumberbirch, and (e) the alleged sighting of Sheridan and Anvar Khan by Elizabeth Quinn."

If we could just look at "emerged."

(a) The tape was presented to the Police by the NotW (b) Gary Clark faced serious pressure from L&B police eventually being dragged to court to swear in front of a Sherrif, he also admitted being out of his head on drink and drugs and could only recall the pool table at Cupids (c) Nicky McKerrill was one of a group of five SSP United Left Members who held a press conference after the verdict where, lo and behold, they remembered that Sheridan had confessed to them some months ago. (D) Of Mr Cumberbirch, the admitted perjurer let us say no more (d) Ms Quinn who seemed to go down a storm outside court but that, it appears, the jury did not believe either and, er, thats it.

1.5 million investigation and that was the best they could do. I'd suggest that if the accused was not Mr Sheridan that case would have been laughed out of any PF's office and a long letter sent to the comissioner asking what his officers were up to.

"Not all may have been credible, not all were believed, but that's five new pieces of evidence pointing towards perjury, all led by the Crown before a jury as they should have been."

If you suggesting that the Crown should not have led this evidence, all of which was relevant and admissible, then may I suggest you propose reasons in law for your suggestion, rather than making assumptions about what Crown Office might have done? In addition, unless you were on the jury (in which case you shouldn't discuss the deliberations), you do not KNOW whom the jury "believed".

I am not a lawyer voice_of_reason, so bare with me if I have muddled the terminology. The ‘co-accused’ I was referring to was Mr. Ted Frances, who faced one count of perverting the course of justice at the Archer perjury trial. He was found not guilty on that single count.

You describe the emergence of ‘evidence’ from the Sheridan defamation case, but as I said before it was evidence that the Edinburgh jury did seem to favour in their decision, but rather was considered to be evidence by the Judge.

I can only take your word for it that the sisting (sp ?) of the NOTW Appeal was normal practice in such circumstances, I have read differently elsewhere.

I have just heard the most gloating radio advertisement for the NOTW promising future Sheridan ‘revelations’ following their Scottish show trial. They that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind

You seem to assume the jury will have taken the same partial view that you do to these witnesses and new evidence. Which, and I'm only guessing, is probably not right.Anyway, only silly sausages keep insisting there was no new evidence. Among the very finest pieces of new evidence in any court case of recent years was a recording of the accused saying aye, ah dunnit.

Can't wait for the latest NotW, I must say. Even popped out for a copy on the 26th. Gripping stuff.

Of all the preposterous comments made about HMA v Sheridan, "their Scottish show trial" is perhaps the most demonstrably ludicrous. Numerous highly placed figures at Crown Office have confirmed (a) there was NO approach by the NOTW in respect of the prosecution, and (b) any such approach would have been rebuffed as a blatant interference with the independence of the Lord Advocate.

A "show trial" as I understand it presents the facade of being a real trial, but the verdict was known in advance. Are you seriously suggesting that the Crown knew in advance the views of the majority of fifteen randomly selected members of the public?

"Numerous highly placed figures at Crown Office have confirmed (a) there was NO approach by the NOTW in respect of the prosecution, and (b) any such approach would have been rebuffed as a blatant interference with the independence of the Lord Advocate."

Please name the highly placed figures, or is this just propaganda driven.Is the Lord Advocate truly independent.Who appointed the Lord Advocate, was that person independent. Compared to many countries this Justice System is better. But.......

On your question about who appoints the Lord Advocate, section 48(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that...

"It is for the First Minister to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment or removal of a person as Lord Advocate or Solicitor General for Scotland; but he shall not do so without the agreement of the [Scottish] Parliament."

1. No chance. Have you never heard of confidentiality? For the record, I am not currently, nor ever have been, employed in any capacity by either the Crown Office or Procurator Fiscal Service. As a result, I fail to see why my comments should be "propaganda driven" by an organisation to which I owe no loyalty.2. Yes.3. The monarch, on the advice of the First Minister; Scotland Act 1998, s. 48 (1).

As the current Lord Advocate was appointed by the McConnell administration when Tommy Sheridan was still an MSP, then reappointed after the 2007 election, she took no part in the decision to indict someone known to her.

You may chose not to believe that, but three separate sources have confirmed it privately.

Come on, anon, spit it out?I believe people are equal, many phrases sets me off "highly placed figures" and"three separate sources have confirmed it privately", it just gets me so worked up.Its my problem and I cant explain it.

Sheridan's prosecution appears to have been a hugely expensive and time-consuming exercise in mud-slinging. Some mud sticking doesn't necessarily make it right. Priorities and tactics should be questioned and equality in the eyes of rhe law should be applied. How many of the witnesses at Sheridan's trials would be convicted of perjury if the same time and resources was spent investigating their evidence? How many employees and associates of the News of the World would be jailed for phone-hacking if the same time and resources was spent investigating their techniques? I wouldn't mind seeing Sheridan going to jail if all the other liars and the phone-hackers were joining him.

I was surprised when I read the sentence I quoted above - and as a consequence, am rather skeptical about the accuracy of the claim. While I'm not a practitioner, it seems to me to be implausible at this stage that the Crown would be willing to make such concrete disavowal. That said, I would be surprised if the individuals in question appeared before a Scottish Court in relation to their evidence in the Sheridan trial.

I see that Ian Hamilton QC has made the following brilliant observation on The Firm website: 'Why did Coulson hand over £200,000 when the police could have got the same evidence for nothing? Either the recording was evidence or it was not evidence and, if it was fabricated, no amount of money could make it sweet.'

I can easily understand that investigations and prosecutions are discretionary. What I can't phathom is how and why the discretion was used as it was. It's insufficient simply to say "there was wrong-doing, therefore the £5 million, the four years and the seemingly unlimited police reources were well spent," as in prioritising Sheridan other cases of wrong-doing received less attention.

The obvious remedy for Sheridan was already in train; the newspaper's appeal. Even those who argue "there was wrong-doing, therefore..." must wonder why the appeal wasn't heard before pressing any perjury investigation.

Even if you can clamber over the remedy in train and not fall faint at the mountain of resources deployed, the mud-slinging during the trial and the deletions from the charge sheet must cause even the most stout-hearted critics of Sheridan to wonder what's gone wrong with legal process in Scotland.

Was Mr Sheridan a law maker in the Scottish Parliament? He even created a wonderful law about poindings and debt. You can't be a law creater and at the same time have no care about the law.

And was there reasonable evidence that he had as the NOTW said committed "monstrous acts of perjury"? If so then I think it was in the public interest to pursue Mr Sheridan.

Even when taking out lots of the charges the spine of the charges still exisited the issue was corrobarating evidence but this blog has explained that very well.

Sheridan's defeat appears to be his own construction as opposed to be the the Crown or even News International. I don't think there was this outcry about Jeffrey Archer or Jonathan Aitken - I suppose we just expect Tory MPS to be corrupt and expected more from a socialist politician.

Mr Sheridan and his supporters would be better reflecting on what happened rather than continue to rage about something that appears to be their own creation.

I'm no supporter of Sheridan. I never have been. I'm a disappointed onlooker. Disappointed that our Scottish judicial system has been used, at great public cost, to conduct a mud-slinging exercise against one "spanking swinger" (as the News of the World called him), whilst other alleged liars and phone-hackers escape attention. As I said before, I wouldn't mind Sheridan going to jail if all the other criminals involved in the taudry scandal were investigated, convicted and joining him. The inequality bothers me.

Joe: I am rather perturbed by your comment that "our Scottish judicial system has been used, at great public cost, to conduct a mud-slinging exercise against one "spanking swinger"".

The reason this case was prosecuted was quite clear. There was a sufficiency of relevant and admissible evidence that indicated that a Member of the Scottish Parliament had deliberately told lies in court for financial gain. Whether other people might be prosecuted for other offences committed on other days is not really the issue. The Crown had evidence that a crime had been committed, and placed that before a jury. Tommy Sheridan was not on trial for swinging, but for lying.

I think you’re right to be perturbed, the_voice_of_reason, but not because I’m questioning the discretion, the priority, the magnitude of effort and, perhaps most importantly, the tactics used to jail a “spanking swinger” for lying. I think you should be perturbed because “a sufficiency of relevant and admissible evidence” wasn’t solely relied upon to gain a conviction. Instead the prosecution threw all sorts into the mix and I can only assume that was to gain a tactical advantage. Why has a similar effort not gone into prosecuting other liars from the Sheridan debacle? Why have witnesses paid between £10,000 and over £200,000 not been investigated? They have a clear motive of financial gain. I’m no legal eagle, but is paying witnesses who you know to be lying not a crime worth investigating?The inequality bothers me and I see no reason whatsoever for the law or the discretionary powers associated with the law to be applied differently to a Member of the Scottish Parliament. The law should be the same for everyone and it disappoints, even perturbs, me to find it otherwise.

But Joe why do you believe these people lied? There is no evidence that they lied, Mr Sheridan did not provide any evidence that these people had lied except that they were in a plot.

You may not like their morality about accepting money from News International however Mr Sheridan was willing to take money from News International by lying in the Court of Session that he was not a "spanking swinger".

Unfortunately the whole thing is distasteful and probably best to be left with Mr Sheridan going to prison.

1. If Sheridan lied about his admissions at the infamous SSP Executive Meeting, perhaps the witnesses who made similar testimonies are similarly guilty?

2. Reports have suggested that numerous witnesses changed their stories from one trial to the next. This might help to explain why the first jury favoured Sheridan whilst the second did not, but it also suggests some were not being entirely truthful at one or other trial.

3. Some of the deletions from the charge sheet were, I believe, tactical, and should never have appeared in court at all. Lallands Peat Worrier has talked about the obvious lack of corroboration. However, I suspect other deletions were the result of witnesses telling lies, particularly those in receipt of substantial payments from the News of the World who have an obvious motive of financial gain.

4. Some of the News of the World employees are essentially self-confessed liars, albeit using a euphemism in court along the lines of “some of our facts were incorrect.” I believe they published lies, knowing it to be lies before going to print, and knowingly paid liars.

5. I think the police and prosecution used evidence from self-confessed liars and liars paid for by the newspaper. I don’t believe the authorities necessarily knew it to be lies at the time, nor do I think they deliberately presented lies in court, but they should have sifted much more carefully and perhaps charged those they found to have lied previously. Now they may have reason to investigate the testimony they previously thought was reliable.

In case I’m mistaken for a Sheridan supporter, again, let me reassure you I am not and never have been. I’m not even a supporter of the left. I do like to see fair play though and I consider equality in the eyes of the law to be extremely important.

1. If Sheridan lied about his admissions at the infamous SSP Executive Meeting, perhaps the witnesses who made similar testimonies are similarly guilty?

2. Reports have suggested that numerous witnesses changed their stories from one trial to the next. This might help to explain why the first jury favoured Sheridan whilst the second did not, but it also suggests some were not being entirely truthful at one or other trial.

3. Some of the deletions from the charge sheet were, I believe, tactical, and should never have appeared in court at all. Lallands Peat Worrier has talked about the obvious lack of corroboration. However, I suspect other deletions were the result of witnesses telling lies, particularly those in receipt of substantial payments from the News of the World who have an obvious motive of financial gain.

4. Some of the News of the World employees are essentially self-confessed liars, albeit using a euphemism in court along the lines of “some of our facts were incorrect.” I believe they published lies, knowing it to be lies before going to print, and knowingly paid liars.

5. I think the police and prosecution used evidence from self-confessed liars and liars paid for by the newspaper. I don’t believe the authorities necessarily knew it to be lies at the time, nor do I think they deliberately presented lies in court, but they should have sifted much more carefully and perhaps charged those they found to have lied previously. Now they may have reason to investigate the testimony they previously thought was reliable.

In case I’m mistaken for a Sheridan supporter, again, let me reassure you I am not and never have been. I’m not even a supporter of the left. I do like to see fair play though and I consider equality in the eyes of the law to be extremely important.

1. It would appear atleast six people from Mr Sheridan's side didlie or were mistaken (twice) about what they witnessed at the Executive Meeting. All of them are prominent members of the Solidarity Movement.

2. It would appear that there was a distaste for being a witness in trial No 1 and not wanting to favour News International in a civil trial perhaps had an impact and people were guarded in what they said. Indeed those who were supporting Sheridan stated that others merely misunderstood or even misheard what was being said whilst in the second trial they were emphatic about it NOT happening.

3. One wonders if the charge sheet was so long to put Mr and Mrs Sheridan under pressure to come up with a plea bargain before the trial. It was also clear that many witnesses did not speak to the police and did not precognise and that News International had played petty fingers with the witnesses, which is distasteful and clearly wrong. However perhaps the spine of the charges were the correct charges to follow all along.

4. News International never really covered themselves in glory and I suspect the orginal stories were slightly naughty on their behalf, however the issue was never how naughty News International were, the issue was - was there a basis for libel (probably not as it would appear Mr Sheridan did attend attend the swingers cupid with a plethora of people) and did he have to lie at the original trial to win his case (it would appear so).

5. How does anyone know who is a "liar" and who isn't however because you have lied once does not mean you lie all the time. Who were the liars? And even if they had been paid by News International does this make them liars? Whose testimony was not reliable that the prosecution used? There mighty be shiftyness but lying is a different issue. To lie to conspire to get someone convicted of perjury is indeed worse (in my book of course and no one is asking me) that to lie to support someone to win against News International (indeed to commit a fraud to gain £200,000 of unscrupulous media company). One is a massive fraud and using the courts time and resources to do it and the second is to deprive someone or some people of their liberty for a considerable amount of time.

I am a supporter of the left and have been a supporter of Sheridan in the past and I am sorely disappointed that the debacle has ended like this but when it comes to fair play if as those who were part of the prosecution suggested that Mr Sheridan accused them of a plot when none existed and he refused their counsel then really Mr Sheridan really deserves what has come to him. Justice may have pervailed however at an unfathomable cost to Mr Sheridan's and other's reputations, his liberty, stress and anxiety on his family and even in the destruction of a political party that had a place in Scottish politics in the 21st century.

Perhaps eksy peksyness is not the way forward in this case and best learnt from rather than rage coming from it.

Hekate, I enjoyed reading your response and I don’t think your views are very far removed from my own. With regard to points 1. and 2. concerning the diametrically opposed testimony from the pro-Sheridan and anti-Sheridan factions I’d like to add that I was surprised that the perjury jury sided with those who had changed their tune, going as you point out from “guarded” in the first trial to “emphatic” in the second. I thought the jury was more likely to side with the anti-Sheridan faction who seemed to be telling a much more consistent story, albeit in smaller numbers. With two highly motivated, extremely partisan groups of witnesses, I thought a not proven verdict was looming and, unfortunately, I think the prosecution’s mud-slinging, the numerous deletions from the indictment, and the evidence associated with the dropped and altered charges coloured the opinion of the jury.

On point 4. I think News International were more than “slightly naughty,” I think they knowingly and deliberately published lies and knowingly paid vast sums to encourage others to lie. The News of the World Royal Editor, Clive Goodman, and his private eye have already been to jail for phone-hacking and I believe Sheridan is also a victim of phone-hacking. Unfortunately, I suspect the police have deliberately failed to properly investigate dozens of phone-hacking allegations, including the crime(s) against Sheridan.

In point 5. you ask; “How does anyone know who is a "liar" and who isn't…?” I acknowledge that I have no proof of lies, just suspicions and my opinion based on everything I’ve read, however, given the same time, money and police resources to investigate potential wrong-doing I’m sure I could show proof of all kinds of lies and phone hacking.

Finally, as a supporter of the left I can well imagine that you are sorely disappointed about the outcome, especially the damage done to left-wing politics in Scotland. I’m actually delighted that the SSP no longer have six MSPs and a bright political future, although I’m sorely disappointed to see Scottish legal process brought low by this shameful episode. The mud-slinging courtroom tactics were disgraceful and the failure to show equal zeal in pursuit of other alleged wrong-doing just as bad. I’m not in a rage because Sheridan is going to jail though. I’m in a rage because others aren’t going with him!

Hekate, I enjoyed reading your response and I don’t think your views are very far removed from my own. With regard to points 1. and 2. concerning the diametrically opposed testimony from the pro-Sheridan and anti-Sheridan factions I’d like to add that I was surprised that the perjury jury sided with those who had changed their tune, going as you point out from “guarded” in the first trial to “emphatic” in the second. I thought the jury was more likely to side with the anti-Sheridan faction who seemed to be telling a much more consistent story, albeit in smaller numbers. With two highly motivated, extremely partisan groups of witnesses, I thought a not proven verdict was looming and, unfortunately, I think the prosecution’s mud-slinging, the numerous deletions from the indictment, and the evidence associated with the dropped and altered charges coloured the opinion of the jury.

On point 4. I think News International were more than “slightly naughty,” I think they knowingly and deliberately published lies and knowingly paid vast sums to encourage others to lie. The News of the World Royal Editor, Clive Goodman, and his private eye have already been to jail for phone-hacking and I believe Sheridan is also a victim of phone-hacking. Unfortunately, I suspect the police have deliberately failed to properly investigate dozens of phone-hacking allegations, including the crime(s) against Sheridan.

In point 5. you ask; “How does anyone know who is a "liar" and who isn't…?” I acknowledge that I have no proof of lies, just suspicions and my opinion based on everything I’ve read, however, given the same time, money and police resources to investigate potential wrong-doing I’m sure I could show proof of all kinds of lies and phone hacking.

Finally, as a supporter of the left I can well imagine that you are sorely disappointed about the outcome, especially the damage done to left-wing politics in Scotland. I’m actually delighted that the SSP no longer have six MSPs and a bright political future, although I’m sorely disappointed to see Scottish legal process brought low by this shameful episode. The mud-slinging courtroom tactics were disgraceful and the failure to show equal zeal in pursuit of other alleged wrong-doing just as bad. I’m not in a rage because Sheridan is going to jail though. I’m in a rage because others aren’t going with him!

“I think of him more of a long nosed, elegantly coiffed Afghan pawing through his leather bound library whilst disdainfully inhaling a puddle of Armagnac in an immense crystal snifter. If he can also lift his leg over his shoulder and lick his balls...” ~ Conan the Librarian™

“... the erudite and loquacious Peat Worrier who never knowingly avoids a prolix circumlocution.” ~Love and Garbage

“My initial mind picture was of a scanty bikini'd individual wallowing in a bath tub of peat. However I've since learned to warm to him, and like peat he's slow to draw but quick to heat...” ~Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers

Definition: "to worry peat" v.

"Peat worrying" is the little known or understood process for the extraction of cultural peat, practised primarily in the Lowlands of Scotland by aspirant urban rustics. Primary implements by means of which successful "worrying" is achieved include the traditional oxter-flaughter but also the sharp-edged kailyard and the innovative skirlie stramasher.